What is wrong with the statement I am posting below?

[my2¢]

I agree with you ..... BUT ..... try getting any news link posted here (without MSM cross-referencing) and it can quickly be deleted.

I never had that experience. It's not that hard these days to find news sources that avoid fitting their coverage to fit any political narrative. For example, there are sites that cover the world news whose interest is in serving those who view things from a financial interest regardless how the chips fall politically. Then there are sources that look at things from a particular industrial sector such as energy and manufacturing.

Additionally when a news event takes place, I find that local coverage is best for sticking to journalist standards of presenting the facts.

It seems to me all these complaints about the media stem from the crybabies on the left in response to Rush Limbaugh. And as politics goes in their monkey-see/monkey-do ways, the crybabies on the other side naturally had to pop up. Those that complain about the media regardless which side of they support always strike me as somebody that goes out for a walk, purposely steps in dog crap, and then complains about it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Republicans now figure all they have to do is make unsubstantiated allegations and attribute it to 'officials' or an 'official on condition of anonymity.' Deep throat was the beginning of the end of journalistic integrity. It does not exist anymore. Anyone who calls themselves an objective journalist anymore is a BALD-FACED LIAR.

 

[Concerned American]

There's a big difference between not releasing news and engaging in a cover-up, don't you know.

Military information is not for public consumption. Don't you know?

 

[Robert W]

There aren't many journalists that aren't on the deep state information train. There are a few, but don't get included in the everyday stream of "news". These mockingbird reporters are also the ones who tell you "Here's what we know now" as you begin your day, and the one sitting beside them nods their head in solomn agreement.

A very clear and astute post, thank you.

 

[Robert W]

How much money has the "liberal media" paid out for "lying" to the American people?

How much has FOX News paid in settlements for lying to the American people??? Close to $1 billion for lies about an election that was NOT stolen; For lies about Democrats and Seth Rich; For lies about Dominion Voting Machines;

Tell us again WHO is lying to the American people Mac?

The press has let you down too. You wanted Harris and got Trump.

 

[Robert W]

You describe Maga as well as people like Robert and you.

I seldom make a mistake on this forum. Why is that? You may have read about history; I have lived it since FDR was president. So, when I see news, I can relate it to news of the distant past. Even when I was a democrat, it was not so terrible then as now. When I delivered newspapers, and read them as well, as a young person, the news then was news and followed journalist rules of reporting. Today news is opinion and biased to the paper's version. For example, when Trump had official papers, the papers treated it as a crime. When Biden had official papers, the papers treated that as wonderful.

 

[GLASNOST]

What is the difference between "un-named sources" and "reliable sources"? I mean look, I'd know the difference if I spoke to both sources but, it's the media making the judgement. THAT holds no weight as far as I'm concerned. None whats-so-ever.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I seldom make a mistake on this forum. Why is that? You may have read about history; I have lived it since FDR was president. So, when I see news, I can relate it to news of the distant past. Even when I was a democrat, it was not so terrible then as now. When I delivered newspapers, and read them as well, as a young person, the news then was news and followed journalist rules of reporting. Today news is opinion and biased to the paper's version. For example, when Trump had official papers, the papers treated it as a crime. When Biden had official papers, the papers treated that as wonderful.

Your general animus is based on mistaken beliefs and viewpoints. They have been pointed out repeatedly, but you ignore wise, mature advice and direction. That fault is solely yours.

 

[Concerned American]

What is the difference between "un-named sources" and "reliable sources"? I mean look, I'd know the difference if I spoke to both sources but, it's the media making the judgement. THAT holds no weight as far as I'm concerned. None whats-so-ever.

'reliable' in who's opinion? An 'unnamed' source isn't a source at all. It is fake news.